On 28/03/11 21.19, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/28/2011 12:18 PM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
A further issue with the review process is that the bulk of people
won't look at
something until it is actually released. I think the only way to deal
with this
is to be willing to correct deficiencies found after release.
Please clarify "release". If you mean making the code and
documentation public
and conveniently accessible, that's the point of the review process.
If you mean
actually including it with the DMD distribution, then maybe we need an
"incubator"
package as others have suggested. Things would get in incubator after
abbreviated
review. While in incubator we'd make no guarantees about their
stability or even
their continued inclusion. The "real" review would take place over a
release
cycle or two, while the module was in incubator. After each release
cycle, we'd
make a three-way decision. A module can:
1. Be declared stable and promoted to std.
2. Be declared not worthwhile and removed.
3. Kept in incubator pending further review and improvements.
I have thought in the past about putting such modules into another
package, call it "foo" for lack of a better name, and put it in the dmd
distribution. If the package pans out in real life, then move it to std.
So, yes, I think your idea is a good one.
Please do! I would love to put in the libcurl wrapper in for early
feedback. Libcurl supports many other protocols that just HTTP, and it
would be very nice to try out the wrapper design initially by
implementing HTTP only support. Based on the feedback of that the rest
of the protocols could be implemented.
/Jonas
